This arrived in my inbox this morning. Not particularly terrible.

After numerous rounds of "We don't know if Osama is still alive," Osama himself decided to send President Bush a note in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game. The President opened the note, which appeared to contain a single line of coded message: 370HSSV-0773H.

Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed the note to Vice President Cheney. The Veep had no clue either so he sent it to his buddies at Haliburton for them to decipher it. After a few hours (at a reasonable hourly charge to the taxpayers) the great minds at Haliburton gave up. They e-mailed the note to the CIA, which couldn’t decipher it either. CIA sent it to the National Security Agency but no one at NSA could crack it. Finally, with no ideas and the President anxiously awaiting a solution, NSA asked Marine Corps Intelligence for help and sent the message to them…

In a matter of seconds, the Marines cabled back: "Tell the President, he's holding the message upside down.”

Many liberal organizations (United for Peace and Justice, Voters for Peace, MoveOn.org and more) held emergency rallies today. There was a rally on the New Haven Green, and many more in cities around the state and country. While on the PSL table during yesterday's May Day festivities, I asked some CT-COW member about why anyone would want to demand that the Iraq spending bill be passed. One said he understood, but at least people would be in the streets. The other looked at me like I was crazy. Now, CT-COW is proudly aligned with the Democratic Party, so I can't pretend not to comprehend from that angle. We didn't get into a discussion at the time because there were people at the table interested in buying magazines, so I politely took his flyer and turned away.

The line from Washington is that Bush vetoed the Iraq war spending bill because it contains a deadline for removing troops from Iraq. The media has reported that this is a brave, risky anti-war bill. While it does have an April 1 deadline for withdrawl, that covers combat troops only - not support troops and advisors for "counter-terrorism" actions. Additionally, the Executive branch can delay the withdrawl for reasons of national security.

The Democrats and Republicans are fighting fighting over how - not whether - to occupy Iraq and use its people and resources for American benefits. We cannot afford to waste our time supporting elements of bourgoise politics.

US Out of Iraq NOW!

Dianne Farrell, Allen Schlessinger and Chris Shays are both campaigning at Grand Central tonight, and as I stand in a beer-less Bar Car on the 5:51 express back to Darien, I have an opportunity to describe the conversation I just had with the Democratic candidate for Congress.

Having missed the 5:28, I had to wade back through the Democrats crowded at the entrance to track 107 to get to the men's room. Having 20 minutes to kill, I found the campaigners and asked a question. They responded with puzzled looks, not sure of the answer, referring me to the upper floor where the candidate herself stood.

Farrell stood at the entrance to another CT-bound peak train, across from the Shays camp. Approaching, I forced her attention onto myself and said I had two simple questions. She continued the 11th hour mad dash to shake as many hands as she could. Assuming, of course, that those hands were attached to well-dressed businesspeople.

"If elected, would you call for an immediate withdrawl of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?"

I knew the answer. She repeated the same thing she said at the Norwalk Community College debate between herself, Shays and Maymin a few weeks ago.

"No, I don't think I could."

She went on to say that she opposes the war, and that we shouldn't just pick up and leave behind the mess. She claimed "It's a complicated situation." As if I don't understand politics. Her delay and condescending acknowledgement of my response that "Self-determination is a simple concept" led her entourage to move in on me, trying to stuff my hand with campaign literature and push me out of the way. There were hands attached to large checkbooks to shake.

Quickly, I said "One more question. Would you support a resolution condeming Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people, specifically in Gaza?"

"No, I do not believe Israel is committing genocide."

I must have smirked, though I didn't expect a "Yes" to that question. While I tried to prod a little further, she told me to look at her website, vote for her tomorrow, and a supporter passed me a campaign 'fact sheet.' Declining politely, I told Farrell, "I'm sorry, but I can't vote for you with those answers."

Marketing, I've learned through osmosis at work, is all about name recognition. If Farrell, Shays, Leiberman, Schlessinger, Ferrucci, Thornton or any others want to win my vote, agreeing on positions is only part of the criteria. Being open to discussion is another. At the afforementioned debate at NCC, no questions from the crowd were allowed, and the candidates left quite quickly after checking in with their respective tables in the lobby. It seems that to these politicians, speaking without hearing and shaking 12 hands a minute will get more votes than discussing policy with someone who could convince other politically-minded people to vote one way or another.

Don't get me wrong - I wasn't planning on voting Democratic (or Republican) anyway. This is just another example of a political system with broken priorities.

(Please excuse any misspellings, formatting errors or other distractions from the content. I'm posting this from mo:blog on my Treo.)

A shooting occurred today in Oaxaca City, Mexico, leaving New York City Indymedia journalist Bradley Will dead after being shot in the chest by paramilitaries. He died before reaching the hospital, according to La Jornada. A photographer from the newspaper Milenio Diario, who was at Will's side, was shot in the foot and reported injured, his status unknown - NYC Indymedia